Army Pfc. Bradley Manning is escorted out of a courthouse in Fort Meade, Md. / Jose Luis Magana, AP

by Rem Rieder, USA TODAY

by Rem Rieder, USA TODAY

In its overzealous pursuit of those who leak classified information, the Obama administration went way too far when it charged Army Pfc. Bradley Manning with "aiding the enemy," an Espionage Act provision generally reserved for spies, traitors who conspire and collaborate with America's foes.

And on Thursday, unfortunately, a way-too-literal military judge refused to throw out the charge. That's bad news for journalists and the American public as well as Manning.

Admittedly, the allegation is exceedingly broad. It applies to '"any person who aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to, or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly."

No one says that Manning was palling around with terrorists. But I guess Judge Denise Lind, an Army colonel, takes that word "indirectly" pretty seriously. Here's her reasoning: Manning, who worked on intelligence reports, had to know that terrorists are well aware of this thing called the Internet. So when he dumped his massive trove of documents on WikiLeaks, he must have realized that they would fall into the hands of evildoers. In fact, prosecutors say that Osama bin Laden read some of the material.

It's not hard to see how such an interpretation of the law would have that dreaded chilling effect. Stretched far enough, that means anyone in the military who leaks anything is just as nefarious as a regular Aldrich Ames or Robert Hanssen. And the leaker, no matter how noble his or her motives, would face the death penalty. You've got to be seriously upset by some aspect of government malfeasance to be willing to die to expose it. (In the Manning case, the government is seeking a life sentence without parole rather than death.)

"This ruling has far-reaching implications," Elizabeth Goitein co-director of the, Liberty & National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, said in a statement. "You don't need specialized intelligence training to know that terrorists use the Internet. By this logic, any military officer who discloses information to the media or posts it on the Internet could be charged with aiding the enemy. That's not consistent with the purpose of the law, and it could have a dramatic, chilling effect on would-be whistleblowers."

I agree that Manning went too far in his indiscriminate release of documents regarding everything from Iraq to Afghanistan to Guantanamo. It was the largest leak in American history. His approach was far different than that of Sheremetyevo International Airport's best-know resident, Edward Snowden. Snowden has been very selective in what he has made public and has worked through the filter of reputable news organizations, like Britain's Guardian newspaper and the Washington Post.

But it's not as if Manning is simply going to walk. He has already pleaded guilty to 10 lesser charges and faces 20 years in jail for those alone.

Pursuing the "aiding the enemy" charge smacks more of revenge than justice. It's part of the Obama administration's record-breaking, way-too-enthusiastic and totally inappropriate use of the Espionage Act to go after leakers. It has prosecuted seven current or former government employees under the act. That's more than all previous administrations combined.

Mainstream journalists, not to mention all citizens who care about their access to important information, can take no solace in the fact that Manning is being prosecuted for leaking to the renegade outfit WikiLeaks rather than a traditional news outlet.

At a hearing in January, Judge Lind asked whether Manning would face the same charges if he had turned his material over to the New York Times, the Times reported.